Quiz

[Knee V]

On what major doctrinal points do the Eastern Orthodox differ, as relates to those questions, may I ask? I know about the adoration and processions, but I'm not sure about other things...

It's not so much that we "differ". And it's not even that the questions were "catholic-oriented" per se (not that one or two weren't). They were just, in general, poorly worded. I'll provide a few examples:

#3 . . . what did that even mean?
#5 . . . it is not UNTRUE that a spiritual union when we take communion. So I can't say that I disagree. But to agree with it would suppose that I believed that there is ONLY a spiritual union.
#12 . . . what was that referring to?
#13 . . . now THAT one is one that is geared toward those with a Catholic mind. Viewing the elements in that way is NEVER how the Orthodox viewed it. It's not that I disagree. Rather, the question is not an option for me, no matter how I answer it.
#15 . . . once again, not even an option for the Orthodox.
#16 . . . that statement is true. But it is also true that He is present if you DON'T have faith.
#18 . . . taken by itself, it has NOTHING to do with the topic. It appears to be a question on one's overall view of scripture.
#20 . . . or in other words, are you SPECIFICALLY Catholic? The two questions are practically interchangeable.

 

[Bulldog]

#12 . . . what was that referring to?

I think it is trying to refer to ther Unitarian view.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

it would be interesting to work on a quiz as a forum.

 

[StAnselm]

Oh, Knee-v: the numberings were random! So your comments don't really tell us much. But I agree with your basic premise - a lot of the questions either didn't make sense to me, didn't appeal to me, or both.

 

[Robbie_James_Francis]

To start off with that seemed a bit off to me...but now I think I get it. Would explaining what I think is the reasoning behind this be debating? Please tell me and if it's not I'll post what I think the reasoning is...though as usual I might be wrong.

Thanks!

Pretty please?

 

[StAnselm]

Umm... you're not really supposed to, and I for one already know the reasoning behing calling the Calvinistic view Nestorian. Still, it might be helpful to some.

So my own tentative, unofficial, under-the-table, on-the-sly, nudge-nudge-wink-wink advice is to go for it and wait for a mod to tell you off.

In any case, I appreciate your politeness.

 

[Robbie_James_Francis]

Umm... you're not really supposed to, and I for one already know the reasoning behing calling the Calvinistic view Nestorian. Still, it might be helpful to some.

So my own tentative, unofficial, under-the-table, on-the-sly, nudge-nudge-wink-wink advice is to go for it and wait for a mod to tell you off.

In any case, I appreciate your politeness.

Thanks. I'm not saying I agree with it, I'm just saying why I think it might be.

I think it's because Nestorianism holds that after the Incarnation of the Word of God in the One Person, fully God and fully Man, the Two Natures can still be seperated from each other.

But, as I say, I'm not saying I agree, as I'm not even sure I do. I just guess that is the reasoning behind the opinion expressed in the quiz (only an opinion after all).



Rob

 

[Jon_]

88% Zwingli
75% Calvin
50% Luther
0% Others

Looks like I'm still split between John and "Carl" ( ). I think I lean more toward Zwingli, though. I genuinely believe that Scripture has been given to us by understandable means that conform to reason because that is the only basis upon which we are able to evaluate things. Granted, there is plenty of spiritual phenomena in the Bible, and God works supernaturally through us, but I always consider John 3:12,

If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things? (KJV)
​

to mean that that which pertains to our necessary understanding on earth is earthly--or at least manifest in earthly form. Where I fall short of Zwingli is in denying that Jesus is present at all when the sacraments are taken. It seems an arbitrary and even unreasonable limitation to place upon our Lord in saying that he cannot or is not present. I refuse to place any sort of limitation upon God apart from that which he reveals to us through his nature. (That is, the limitations of his nature, which are not so much limitations, but divine standards of conduct to which he holds himself; for which we are inspired to faith and trust in him.)

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[TheologiaCrucis]

Great answer! I totally agree with you that Scripture has been given to us by understandable means, but how can we know that this is not one of the spiritual phenomena the Bible speaks of? This is my only hang-up on this issue.

I am a Lutheran but I scored as Calvin on this test. I think my views line up more closely with his. I think I might be a Calvinist if I could accept the dreaded "L"

 

[Jon_]

Great answer! I totally agree with you that Scripture has been given to us by understandable means, but how can we know that this is not one of the spiritual phenomena the Bible speaks of? This is my only hang-up on this issue.

I am a Lutheran but I scored as Calvin on this test. I think my views line up more closely with his. I think I might be a Calvinist if I could accept the dreaded "L"

Ah, the "dreaded L," easily the most logical, reasonable, and understandable of all the points, if we can only ignore our heart when it tries to tell us differently. I find Gen. 6:5 and 1 John 3:20 to be great comforts in that regard.

I share your same struggle, though. How can we be sure that there isn't something supernatural about the Eucharist? I agree that reason and faith should dictate our walk, but we know so very little of spiritual things. It seems almost indiscernable that we could ever know the true nature of the Lord's Supper. Instead of delving too deep into it, I just take it in faith, accepting that I probably will never understand it anymore than I already do.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[Look Homeward Anglican]

I got:

Calvin 75%
Luther 75%
Zwingli 38%
Catholic 38%
Unitarian 0%

I guess I should really read through this thread so I can find out what a "Zwingli" is.

 

[Robbie_James_Francis]

I guess I should really read through this thread so I can find out what a "Zwingli" is.

Ulrich Zwingli was a person. But I agree that the word "Zwingli" is hilarious.

Oh, and just to be balanced and not considered anti-Reformed :o I also find the name "Ratzinger" amusing.

Rob

 

[Tertiumquid]

I'm not surprised to be honest. But I know nothing of what Calvin, Zwingli and the Unitarians believe...:o

I can't help you on the unitarians, but I can let you in on Luther, Calvin and Zwingli:

http://www.christianforums.com/t1874979-understanding-luther-zwingli-and-calvin-on-the-lord’s-supper.html

Regards,
James Swan

 

[Look Homeward Anglican]

Ulrich Zwingli was a person. But I agree that the word "Zwingli" is hilarious.

Oh, and just to be balanced and not considered anti-Reformed :o I also find the name "Ratzinger" amusing.

Rob

Thanks very much for the link. I had no idea!

 

[Jon_]

I can't help you on the unitarians, but I can let you in on Luther, Calvin and Zwingli:

http://www.christianforums.com/t1874979-understanding-luther-zwingli-and-calvin-on-the-lord’s-supper.html

Regards,
James Swan

My guess is that answers like, "Bread and wine? Let's just hug and exchange flowers, instead!" are going to be Unitarian answers.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[Knee V]

Oh. I didn't realize that the numbering was random. But you get my point.

 

[StAnselm]

I think Huldrych changed his name to Carl later in life.

I think it's because Nestorianism holds that after the Incarnation of the Word of God in the One Person, fully God and fully Man, the Two Natures can still be seperated from each other.

After all that, only two lines!! Yes, and the Lutherans say that the Calvinists are separating the two natures by saying that Christ's body (i.e. his human nature) remains in heaven.

 

[Jon_]

I think Huldrych changed his name to Carl later in life.

I'm sure he did! Either that or he had an evil twin named, Carl.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[5solas]

I think Huldrych changed his name to Carl later in life.

This is not correct, have a look here:
http://www.zwingli.ch/

[font=Arial, Helvetica][size=-1]A ¦B ¦ C ¦ D ¦ E ¦ F ¦ G ¦ H ¦ I/J ¦ K ¦L ¦ M ¦ N ¦O ¦P ¦ Q ¦R ¦S ¦ T ¦U ¦V ¦ W ¦X ¦Y ¦ Z[/size][/font]

Artikel: Ulrich, Huldreich oder Huldrychus?

[font=Arial, Helvetica][size=-1][/size][/font]

Auf dem Denkmal und in vielen Publikationen heisst er Ulrich, andere nennen ihn Huldreich, und er selber pflegte mit Huldrych oder Huldrychus zu unterschreiben. - Doch wie hiess er nun wirklich, der vor gut 500 Jahren geborene Zwingli?

Wer glaubt, Huldrych sei die ursprüngliche Form des Vornamens Ulrich, liegt falsch. Zwinglis Taufname war Ulrich (in Anlehnung an den heiligen Ulrich von Augsburg von ca. 930 n. Chr.), sein lebenslanger Rufname soll Ueli oder Uoli gelautet haben. Bereits als Student entwickelte der junge Zwingli jedoch einen ausgeprägten Hang zur Inszenierung seines Vornamens und schrieb sich fortan lateinisiert Udalricus. Später wollte Zwingli offenbar als huldrycher (huldreicher) Mann in die Geschichte eingehen und begann seine Briefe und Übersetzungen mit Huldrychus zu unterschreiben.

Der Zürcher Rat machte bei Zwinglis Namensspielereien allerdings nicht mit. In den Ratsprotokollen blieb er der "Meister Uolrich".

His name given by his parents was Ulrich; the abbreviation being Ueli/Uoli; later in his life he called himself Udalricus (Latin) and then Huldrych (= full of grace, gracious)

 

[Albion]

This is not correct, have a look here:
http://www.zwingli.ch/

His name given by his parents was Ulrich; the abbreviation being Ueli/Uoli; later in his life he called himself Udalricus (Latin) and then Huldrych (= full of grace, gracious)

Yes, but wasn't he always known to his friends as "Larry?"